In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Review of Higher Education 27.4 (2004) 590-591



[Access article in PDF]
Dennis John Gayle, Bhoendradatt Tewarie, and A. Quinton White Jr. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 30, No. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley, 2003. 160 pp. Paper: $26.00. ISBN 0-7879-7174-X.

With evolutionary changes occurring in higher education, Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University could not be more timely. Dennis John Gayle, Bhoendradatt Tewarie, and Quinton White state that this book will seek to answer the question, "What are the forces that influence university governance in the twenty-first century, and how do university leaders seek to respond?" (p. 1). Before delving into this topic, they define governance and acknowledge that the term is open to a variety of interpretations. For their purposes, however, "university governance refers to the structure and process of authoritative decision making across issues that are significant for external as well as internal stakeholders within a university" (p. 1).

After clarifying the relative nature of the term, the authors spend considerable time giving readers an overview of the current literature on university governance. This in-depth review is an added bonus, especially for students of governance and practitioners. They also analyze the trends in university governance and the challenges to university governance structures. By focusing primarily on issues relating to governance that are based on several comprehensive national research studies: leadership and management, technology, teaching and learning, and budgeting, the authors position their work as a necessary read for those researching and participating in higher education governance. [End Page 590]

In the chapter focusing on structural and cultural elements of governance, the authors posit that organizational culture, which is shaped by the central beliefs and values of the participants (i.e., trustees, senior administrators, and faculty members), contributes to effective governance when trust is a central component. Gayle, Tewarie, and White effectively illustrate that there is significant controversy over the distribution of authority among trustees, senior administrators, and faculty. They stress that shared governance can be achieved only when there is mutual respect and an inclusive process. Additionally, leaders must be embedded in the organization's culture because not having a clear understanding can result in failure when change is introduced into the system.

The authors assert that the "nature of governance has a direct and very significant impact on the effectiveness of teaching and learning" (p. 81) because how an institution is governed—for example, like a corporation or as a place that fosters innovation in teaching and learning—can greatly influence the teaching environment as well as the motivation of faculty and students. This observation seems to be a request for institutions to examine their governance structures to ensure that those structures are not in opposition to the institution's mission.

When the authors discuss governance and information technology, they raise a series of questions that most higher education institutions are currently addressing or will be addressing in the near future. They state that "the implementation of an effective information technology strategy actually implies new models of governance, administration, and management" (p. 90). Thus, they are challenging institutions to think beyond the traditional concepts of governance when creating systems that incorporate e-learning.

When discussing resource allocation and governance, the authors spend a considerable amount of time on Responsibility-Centered Management (RCM) and how it can change the perceptions of shared governance. For readers unfamiliar with the term, they highlight the major points of this budgetary model and give examples to illustrate the concept.

In the closing chapter of the monograph, the authors recommend, "Governance must be shared among all major stakeholders, not just faculty, students, administrators, and trustees, on the basis of mutual respect and open communication" (p. 110). This viewpoint is evident throughout the book and provides the basis for many of the discussions.

As previously stated, the synthesis of the current literature is a major strength of this monograph, especially for those...

pdf

Share